Temporal juxtaposition of sound modules in Witold Lutoslawski’s Jeux Vénitiens (1961)

“When composing large scale closed forms, I always remember that what I am principally engaged in doing is organizing the process of the perception of my work.”

Lutoslawski, written with the intention to be presented in Darmstadt 1967

Witold Lutoslawski (1913-1994) approached composition with a methodical attempt to organize the perception of his musical forms. The Polish composer, conductor and pianist sought clarity of structural order for the purpose of “stimulating both the listener’s memory and his powers of anticipation.” For him, the comprehension of an overall design came through indicated divisions of contrasting, evolving sound complexes.

At 48, already an established composer, he was still searching for his personal musical language. Lutoslawski sought an organization of an “independent complex of sounds bounded in time” as the driving force  determining “the cast of the whole work just like themes in classical music”. He reached  a breakthrough in his quest with the 1961 four-movement work Jeux Vénitiens. It was then that he managed to focus solely on the juxtaposition of sound modules in order to clarify a distinct formal approach. Focus solely on sound modules as structural blocks was achieved by combining two methods: ad lib ensemble sections (in a method he coined as limited aleatorism) along a recent modal approach to 12-tone harmonic aggregates.

While scholarship is filled  with research into the contents of his sound modules, in this paper I seek to shed light on the sole aspect of their temporal juxtaposition as a critical part of Lutoslawski’s formal approach in Jeux Vénitiens.  I will demonstrate that through a bird’s-eye view on the metastructure of each of the four movements and the piece as a whole. I will use tables and graphs, providing an economical way for formal analysis, to clarify these constructions. In addition, I will describe in detail the components and character of each sound module in every movement. I will also demonstrate how each module follows a procedural system of transformation to reach their formal goals in the overall dramatic design of each movement. In so doing, I will draw on lectures Lutoslawski gave in the early 1960s pertaining to his approach to formal structure, in order to demonstrate his individual thinking about the structuring and perception of closed forms.

As his musical language was going through a transition in the 1950s, the decade also saw a political shift in Poland with the October Revolution of 1956. The fall of Stalinism led to a new cultural revival with the influence of Western Avant Garde art.  While in the first half of the 1950s he continued to explore a post tonal approach with a new addition of folk melodies (Concerto for Orchestra,1954), after 1956 Lutoslawski adopted a fully chromatic twelve-tone approach to his pitch choice. However he didn’t follow the common Schunbergian-serial method,  but developed a personal modal way of constructing twelve-note harmonic aggregates, defined by type and quantity of specific intervals. The first work to employ this technique was the Five Songs for mezzo soprano and piano (1957), which was followed by Musique Funèbre (1958) for string orchestra and the Three Postludes for orchestra (1958-1963). In the latter work, we already see examples of juxtaposed sound modules as a structural method, yet they are constrained by bar divisions of classical musical time. The solution for a new aleatoric method to organize rhythms was inspired by John Cage. While working on Jeux Vénitiens, Lutoslawski recalled a life-changing moment when he heard a radio broadcast of Cage’s Concert for Piano and Orchestra (1958): 

“While listening to it I suddenly realized that I could compose music differently from the way I had in the past. That I could progress toward the whole not form the minute detail but the other way around – I should start from chaos and gradually create order in it.”

The revelation led Lutoslawski to develop his limited aleatorism technique of ad lib unsynchronized ensemble playing, in order to realize sound modules free of coherent pulse or bar divisions. These sections, with their freely interpreted polyphonic rhythms, could be heard in their totality without any focus on a particular instrumental line. Since Jeux Vénitiens and for the rest of his career, he combined ad libitum sections (with conductor cues) together with ‘a battuta’ (traditionally conducted) sections. 

In the literature around Lutoslawski there is a constant use of various phrases like ‘texture space’, ‘sound blocks’, ‘sound masses’ or ‘sound units’, to name a few.  In an attempt to define his new methods, Lutoslawski often used the term ‘sound object’, which was originally introduced by French composer of electronic music, Pierre Schaeffer. In a lecture he gave in Tanglewood in 1962, he expands on this concept that “it is an aggregate of sounds, bounded in time and pitch range, and the separate sounds of this aggregate are more closely related to each other than to sounds of other objet sonore appearing before, afterward, or even simultaneously.” 

For the purpose of my analysis I prefer to use the term ‘sound module’. A sound module  is an orchestrated musical section that defines a structural building block for the composition. When working with modules Lutoslawski differentiates between two rhythmic levels: local rhythms contained inside the module, and the macro rhythm which corresponds to the entrances of the various modules. Each module will have a particular identity in a variety of parameters: orchestration, duration, dynamics, register, density, procedural mechanisms of transformation, formal goal, pitch material and rhythmic material. 

Temporal juxtaposition will describe how these modules will appear and disappear on the time axis of each closed form. As this entire work is comprised of contrasting modules, their overall placement is designed to demonstrate how they are exposed and juxtaposed in varying durations. Temporal juxtaposition defines the change between modules, their moments of overlap or superimposition. The precise timings of these switches between modules and their timely exposure (duration of macro rhythm)is a critical aspect for their collective purpose to clarify the perception of the form. One example for a form defined by juxtaposition Lutoslawski gives in his lectures, is of the choir entrance in Beethoven’s 9th symphony, which marks a structural shift for the listener, from a purely orchestral work to a choral piece with orchestra.

Jeux Vénitiens premiered at the 1961 Venice Biennale. It is a four movement chamber orchestra piece, lasting for about thirteen minutes, and scored for twenty-nine players: seven woodwinds(two flutes, two clarinets, one oboe,one bassoon), three brass(trumpet,french horn and trombone), percussion(four players:three timpani, three parade drums, snare drum, xylophone, three Cymbals, tam -tam, five tom-toms, clave,vibraphone without motor), harp,  one piano (two players, celesta) and a strings section (4,3,3,2).  The name of the work is taken from the premier’s location, with a nod to the game-like approach of its aleatoric means, as many scholars observed. But perhaps it also hints to the playfulness in the way it was structured and composed.

Each movement is orchestrated differently but altogether shares a few core elements: an element of ad libitum playing along conducted sections, a differentiation of instrumental groups and a juxtaposition or superimposition of sound modules. The four movements also vary in duration: The first is about 2.40, the second 1.45, the third 3.30 and the fourth about five minutes.

The four movement model encapsulates a fundamental formal design Lutoslawski learned from his influential teacher Maliszewski. As Charles Bodman Rae states: “In Jeux Vénitiens we have each of Maliszewski’s four ‘characters’ precisely identified with the individual movements: introductory, transitional, narrative and concluding.”

Although less than two and a half minutes, in no other piece by Lutoslawski is this juxtaposition of sound modules more coherent than in the first movement of Jeux Vénitiens. The form of the movement is arrived through the temporal juxtaposition of two main sound modules while a third one functions as a temporal divider between them. The two main modules are: Module 1 – an ad lib accumulative module of winds, timpani, brass and piano (in order of exposure), and Module 2 – mostly sustained chromatic string clusters in the span of a perfect fifth with occasional brief solos. Module 3 is a percussive hit of clave, side drums and xylophone, that functions as a temporal divider between  Modules 1 and 2. 

Module 1  is introduced right after the first hit of Module 3. Its evolution in the movement, with each juxtaposition, is in a constant state of accumulation of instrumental variety and thus further registral exposure, building on the sound texture that was previously introduced by this module. Harmonically the unit is made of two layers of twelve-note chords. Wind instruments appear first in mid-high register, playing animated figures of a twelve-note chord. Secondly, timpanis join in, thirdly three brass instruments complete the mid range of the winds register, and fourthly piano (two players) stretch the unit’s register to its extreme high and low and completes a second twelvetone chord with the brass instruments. Module 1 is played exclusively in ad libitum. As the piece progresses to the final tutti stage of this unit, the listener witnessed the making of this Module with its specific timbral components. This is the formal goal of this module and as listeners we can identify the historical progression it went through. Lutoslawski clearly shares with the listener how the structural totality of this specific module reaches its climax when all four components are played in tandem.

Module 2, played solely by the strings and mostly conducted,  goes through a different procedure, and by doing so, Lutoslawski not only juxtaposes textural block, but also compositional processes that are specific to each module. Module 2 is the first contrasting section to Module 1, divided by the percussive hit. Its first appearance is a soft pianissimo eight semitone tone cluster in the span of a fifth.The immediate radiating stasis is punctuated lightly with brief short solo tremolos as a solo violin emerges with a contrasting tone in a higher register. In each exposure of this module the fifth cluster shifts gradually in register.  In its rising for one particular juxtaposition the module become a surprising harmonic aggregate for brief 2 second just before Module 1 reaches its climax. In each final appearance for thirty-nine seconds (the longest duration of a section in this movement) The string clusters descend finally with a brief solemn pizzicato harmonics solo by the cello, as the strings subside, reaching their final formal goal and end on D#5-E5, the notes which will begin the second movement. 

Module 3 is the dividing percussive hit comprised  of clave, side drums and xylophone, and functions as temporal frame between Modules 1 and 2. Once its dividing role is finished in the last codetta, it reaches its formal goal exposing its components, revealed one by one surrounded by silence. 

In terms of temporality, the exposure duration of Module 1 is in even numbers of seconds: 12,18,6,24. The exposure duration of each appearance of Module 2 is mostly in odd numbers of seconds:27,21,2,39. There is also a higher temporal arrangement of: 39’(12+27),39’(18+21), 32’(6+2+24),39’. Hence, the defining temporal unit of the last strings appearance is actually the addition of the first and second thematic juxtaposition.

The second movement is a fast, fully conducted scherzo that lasts under a minute and forty five seconds. It begins exactly where the strings ended in the previous movement, but now turning to fast chromatic short sixteenth note fragments. The structure is arrived through a juxtaposition of three main modules – Module 1 of bowed strings, Module 2 of winds, harp, vibraphone, xylophone (pizz strings added), and Module 3 of piano and percussion. In the first minute and twenty seconds, Modules 1 and 2 alternate, though not juxtaposed abruptly as in the first movement. Instruments of Module 2 appear in a pointillistic fashion and then the entire module weaves in through the tail of Module 1.

After two such juxtapositions, two sixty-cm cardboard cylinders are pressed on the piano and mark a structural transition – a juxtaposed temporal divider signaling a shift in content. It is not an abrupt alteration, since the bowed strings of Module 1 now still descend gradually more than three octaves, while a dense texture of repeated piano chords (aggregates) and percussion tremolos come gradually to a grand pause. The movement finishes with a codetta of a brief reappearance of Module 2 of winds, brass, vibraphone and harp.

As this movement corresponds to Maliszewski’s transitional phase, modules are more elastic in their transition. As the language of juxtaposition was introduced in the first movement, here we get a new transitory angle, that is less final. Lutoslawski prepares the grounds for what will appear later in the work.

It is interesting to note that in this movement, the order of juxtaposition is reversed as the strings appear before the winds and brass. Yet the second module to appear in the movement is also the one to conclude it, just like in the first movement.  Although here, it is extremely brief.

The third movement, being the ‘narrative’ section, portrays a different aspect of temporal juxtaposition. This entire slow movement (around three and half minutes) is built around a lyrical solo flute recitative module that gradually ascends in register from G4 To G6. Three sound modules are structured as layers of accompaniment: module of piano, module of harp, module of winds, while a fifth module of tutti strings functions as a formal marker.

How come these are modules if they function as support for a soloist? Because each module has a distinct orchestration and follows a particular registral path during the course of the movement and secondly, there are four twelve tone harmonic aggregates layered across the modules: one for the solo flute, one for harp and winds, one for piano and various ones for the tutti strings chords. Lutoslawski asks that the flute solo be “interpreted freely” and calls in his performance notes for approximate rhythmic values in each of the sound modules, while the conductor give signs at the start of each new section and for each of the tutti strings chord.  That brings forth a beautiful loose procession devoid of a feeling of bar lines yet not completely aleatoric.

Here the juxtaposition is done along a shaping-evolving sound module (solo flute) and not as a shift to a contrasting texture. Each module goes through a specific temporal procedure as the flute is rising in register. The piano begins at rehearsal letter C with a twelve-tone row passacaglia, made of fourths, that gradually expands in register and for a brief moment around the strings climax, shifts to pounding clusters of a harmonic aggregate. The winds and harp accompaniment share a  twelve-tone aggregate that shifts between the two modules, and both expand in register, and as Kathy Ann Rasavage states, “mirror the general registral progression of the soloist.”

The tutti strings module is the exception in this movement. It functions as a temporal divider and as Steven Stucky suggests, it supports the “crescendo-decrescendo shape of the movement.” This module creates a layer reminiscent of the punctuating hit of movement 1 but here it is superimposed as an acetate of chord markers. Each appearance of the brief twelve-tone string chords become more frequent and contracts in register till a climax where the playing technique shifts to pizzicato and then gradually expands again in register till the end of the movement, with the last twelve-tone chord presented as the beginning of the fourth movement.

The final movement and the longest (five minutes) presents a climactic conclusion to all previous movements, with an extended elaboration to the structural ideas presented before. It t consists  of four main parts: an opening segment, a gradually intensifying section that reaches a climax and explodes into a subsiding percussion catharsis and a final epilogue.

The entire movement is built on the juxtaposition and superimposition of modules and played exclusively in ad libitum, where the conductor indicates only the entry points for each sound module. As in other movements, each module is usually restricted to a homogenic family of instruments, yet here they will eventually overlap into a polyphony of modules.

In the opening section Lutoslawski states that “Nothing essential is happening…accents begin to accumulate…And this feeling of anticipation is duly confirmed when we hear the first intervention in the piano.” (p 19) We notice here again the technique of framing of musical activity by modules:

First by two twelve-tone string chords as a finishing remark for the third movement and thereafter by three twelve- tone chords made of winds, brass and two bowed-string harmonics. These chords frame the increasing polyphonic voices that alternate between boxes of strings to boxes of winds and brass.

After about 59 seconds a new temporal marker – an aggregate piano chord, abruptly declares the beginning of each of four stages of an intensifying juxtaposition and superimposition of four different modules: piano, strings, winds, brass, in various tempos and durations. As the following graph shows, the modules become shorter and shorter in duration till the final climax: A1-5,5,4,4,4,3,3,3,3, A2-3,3,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1, A3-1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,A-0.8,0.8,0.6,0.6,0.3,0.3.

When describing the sections leading to the climax Lutoslawski explains:

“…in addition to this microrhythm apprating in the different objects, there is still a macro-rhythm, a rhythm resulting from the collocation in time of the individual objects, regarded as a whole. This macro rhythm appears…as a cycle of ever  shorter time sections, apportioned by the beginning of the separate objects….By the end  of the fragment we already cease to distinguish clearly the beginnings of separate objects and proceed gradually to a thickly scored, polyrhythmic orchestral tutti, almost verging on chaos.”

What becomes a polyphony of contrasting textures climax to a combined module of strings+brass+winds that is then juxtaposed abruptly with a loud version of the now pounding two cardboard cylinders from the second movement. The combined strings+winds+brass module appears again juxtaposed with the piano, for the last time. Yet after twelve seconds, is abruptly interrupted by a new module of percussion, which marks the beginning of the final section of the work.This section reminds us of the way the second movement came to a close with the abrupt entrance of percussion. For the next about 90 seconds the triple forte percussion is subsiding gradually while it is juxtaposed by a soft module of celeste, harp and piano sharing notes from a new twelvetone chord. After the climax of winds and strings, our ears are suddenly focused on the loud drums as the second module is gradually introduced, bringing the dynamics down and coming to a complete pause.  As this section comes to a close in a grand pause, silence marks a temporal divider to the terminal epilogue. Here we have four modules coming to a definitive close: winds, three brass , celesta+harp+vibraphone+pizz low strings and high piano trills with high artificial string harmonics. Lutoslawski summarises this ending in terms of his use of sound objects: 

“The conclusion of the whole work..is also a typical construction with sound objects. Each of these objects – there are four of them altogether- has its characteristic physiognomy, differentiating it from the others…all four objects possess in common, namely a thinning-out of the density of their impulses…each of the objects has its own special and distinctive terminative course…These terminative characters of the various objects combine in our perception to form the conclusion of the work.”

This quote reinforces the conceptual strategy for each module – that it has a specific temporal course, from its first appearance to the last and that its ultimate goal is to delineate the formal structure of the piece.

In conclusion, Jeux Vénitiens presents a thorough study in the structuring of small closed forms by temporally juxtaposing or superimposing sound modules that are mostly played ad lib. Each movement progresses with the portrayal of various strategies for this assemblage yet keeping a systematic approach that run through all of them. The strucutre of each closed form is clearly divided by juxtaposition and temporal markers, exactly as Lutoslawski talks about his approach to form:

“In order to make a large form clear and to give a definitive shape, capable of being comprehended and remembered, we must indicate clearly its several stages or divisions….These must be differentiated from one another, so that together they will form a construction that may be grasped in the course of performance.”

 If Lutoslawski’s goal was to use modules as ‘themes in classical music’, as I quoted in the introduction, the entire work is an elaboration on that theme and its development. The first movement introduces the basic subject of juxtaposing two radically contrasting modules, while the second movement blurs the harsh contrast yet presents a new interruption of percussion and piano as a third juxtaposed module. The third movement excludes percussion and brass and focuses on how modules can move along a linear line of a flute solo, while when we reach the fourth movement, eight minutes into the work, we gradually climax into a final chaotic superimposition of modules followed by an abrupt juxtaposition of the subsiding last two sections.

In all movements, along structuring modules, Lutoslawski uses formal markers to clarify temporal division alongisde articulating these juxtapositions and transformations: In the first movement it’s the percussion hit, in the second movement it’s percussion and piano, in the third movement it’s the contrasting tutti string chords and in the fourth movement it’s a combination of sustained chords in the opening, piano chords and various entrances of juxtaposed modules and percussion interruptions. In each movement, modules reach specific registral goals that define their formal roles and hence the registral scale of each movement and its evolution in the entire piece.

Inspired from the avant garde music of his time yet consistently attached to his classical upbringing, Lutoslawski succeeded in Jeux Vénitiens to negotiate these two poles and arrive at an insividual language that sounds experimental and sensual yet maintains the precision of his formal constraints at all times. By differentiating musical material into modules and subscribing their accurate macro durations, he embarked on a new mature era where he continued through the 1960’s to explore and expand on these structural ideas and compositional methods.

Brumbelow, Jow. “Symmetry in Witold Lutoslawski’s Trauermusik.” Indiana Theory

Review 6, no. 3 (Spring, 1983): 3-17.

Collin Rice, Hugh. “Witold lutoslawski and the Craft of Writing Nothing.” Tempo 64, no.

253 (July 2010): 21-29.

Kaczyński, Tadeusz. Conversations with Witold Lutoslawski. Translated by Yolanta Mat.

London: Chester, 1984.

Klein, Michael. “Texture, Register and Their Formal Roles in The music of Witold

Lutoslawski.” Indiana Theory Review 20/1 (Spring 1999): 37-70.

Klein, Michael Leslie. “A theoretical study of the late music of Witold

       Lutoslawski: New interactions of pitch, rhythm, and form.” State University

       of New York at Buffalo, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1995.

Lindstedt, Iwona. “Lutoslawski and Sonoristics.” In Lutoslawski’s Worlds, edited by Lisa

Jakelski, Nicholas Reynolds, 165-182. Boydell and Brewer: Boydell Press.

Lutoslawski, Witold. Lutoslawski on Music. Edited and Translated by Zbigniew Skowron.

Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2007.

Lutoslawski, Witold. Venetian Games. Warsaw: Maeck Verlag,1961.

Moura, Eli Eri. “Lutoslawski’s approach to Sound Masses and Form in Livre Pour

Orchestre.” Revista Música Hodie 4, no. 1 (2004).   

https://revistas.ufg.br/musica/article/view/19781 (accessessed January 30,2019).

Nikolska, Irina. Conversations with Witold Lutoslawski (1987-92). Translated by Valeri

Yerokbin. Preface by Lutoslawski. Stockholm: Melos, 1994.

Nordwell, Ove, ed. Lutoslawski. Translated by Christopher Gibbs. Stockholm: Edition

Wilhelm Hansen, 1968.

Paja-Stach, Jadwiga. “Witold Lutoslawski’s art of orchestration. Instrumentation devices

as key the ideas and tone-colour details.” Witold Lutoslawski Studies 3 (2009):   

98-108.

Paja, Jadwiga. “The Polyphonic Aspect of Lutoslawski’s Music”. Acta Musicologica vol.

62, Fasc. ⅔ (May-Dec., 1990): 183-191.

Rae, Charles Bodman. The Music of Lutoslawski. London: Faber and Faber Limited,

1994.

Reynald, Nicholas. “Livre or Symphony? Lutoslawski’s Livre Pour Orchestre and the

Enigma of musical Narrativity.” Music Analysis 27, no. 2-3 (July/October 2008):

253-294.

Russavage, Kathy Ann. “Instrumentation in the Works of Witold Lutoslawski”. D.M.A

diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1988.

Scolnic, Vladimir. “Pitch Organization in Aleatoric Counterpoint in Lutoslawski’s

        Music of the Sixties.” Doctoral diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1993.

Skowron, Zbigniew, ed. Lutoslawski Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Steyn, Marietjie. “Witold Lutoslawski technique of ‘limited aleatorism’.” Ars Nova 21, no.

1 (1989): 70-92.

Stucky, Steven. Lutoslawski and his Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1981.Varga, Bàlint Andràs. Lutoslawski Profile. London: Chester Music, 1976.